David Burrowes: Despite the fact that the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), offered supportive words to my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) about drug addiction in prisons, why did drug treatment and rehabilitation barely get a mention in Lord Carter's review or the Secretary of State's response last week? How will the Secretary of State ensure that prisons have a purpose other than warehousing, addiction to drugs and a propensity to reoffend?

John Robertson: My hon. Friend will be aware of the ruling in the House of Lords at the end of October that the 12-month rule on applications under human rights law did not apply in Scotland. Thus, £70 million in compensation may be paid to prisoners. With the recent case of a prisoner who was denied IVF treatment getting a €5,000 award from the court through the convention, does my hon. Friend think that the convention is tipped the wrong way, and that it is time we started thinking of victims and put an end to this ludicrous state of affairs?
	 [Official Report, 18 December 2007, Vol. 469, c. 1MC.]

David Hanson: The Under-Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) and I are looking carefully, through the inter-ministerial group on the prevention of reoffending, at what works, and with the Minister for Children, Young People and Families, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes), through the joint management of the Youth Justice Board, we are considering good practice. The YOTs do a tremendous job. I have seen examples at first hand throughout the country of where they have made real interventions in reducing crime, and I am sure that that is true in Portsmouth, where my hon. Friend has taken a great interest in preventing youth crime. I shall certainly be considering whatever good examples hon. Members can produce with a view to putting them into practice throughout the country.

Jack Straw: The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills) is working closely on that, better to ensure that the reports and recommendations of the Law Commission, where they enjoy a consensus throughout the Chamber and in the other place, can be more swiftly enacted than in the past. Since the Law Commission was established in the 1960s, it has done important work, but there is no question but that we need to do better at implementing its recommendations.

David Laws: I thank the Secretary of State for early sight of his statement.
	I know that it is traditional on these occasions for Opposition spokesmen to be disappointed by the contents of statements, whatever they contain, but may I genuinely say that many people inside and outside the House will be tremendously disappointed with the plan that he has put forward? After all, if we set it alongside the conclusions of the UNICEF report published earlier this year, which put Britain bottom of the league table of 21 developed countries in respect of child poverty and child well-being, today's plan emerges as a mouse of a plan to deal with what is, frankly, a mountain of a problem. Even where new policies have been announced, they are tiny in their effect: 20,000 places for two-year-olds set against 650,000 youngsters in that cohort. What we have heard today is not, by anybody's independent judgment, a serious 10-year plan for children, but a hotch-potch of reviews, recycled announcements from earlier Secretaries of State, one or two gimmicks and a unifying theme that is a belief only in top-down big government solutions.
	Why was there no mention in the statement of what is supposed to be the biggest ambition of the entire Government—dealing with child poverty? Is it not absolutely astonishing for a Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families to give a statement to this House in which the only mention of child poverty is backward-looking, describing what has happened up to today with nothing at all about policy for the future? Does not that indicate that Martin Narey of Barnardo's was correct to say yesterday that the Government now seem to be managing the failure to meet the 2010 target? Does it not also underline this Government's foolishness in deciding in the pre-Budget report to allocate £3.7 billion towards the reduction of inheritance tax, set alongside the £120 million—an almost trivial amount—found for child poverty? Why has the Secretary of State with responsibility for children failed to mention anything forward looking about what used to be one of this Government's great ambitions? Why do we continue to find that 1.5 million children—almost of half of whom are living in relative poverty—live in households that pay full council tax when the Government have been reviewing and reviewing that unfair tax for years and doing precisely nothing about it?
	On the schools agenda, why on earth do we need yet another primary curriculum review? I thought that primary education was supposed to be something that the Government had fixed in their first term in office. We now find that apparently it has not and that we need another review. What is the review designed to achieve? According to the Secretary of State, it is to allow more time for literacy and numeracy studies, but we already know that 51 per cent. of time in primary schools is spent on those two subjects. Rather than have another pointless review of primary education, why does not the Secretary of State just devolve powers to schools to make those decisions? Is it really necessary for the Whitehall screwdriver to reach into every school in the country, directing schools on how to communicate with parents and even fixing the number of graduates in early years settings? How on earth can it be right for central Government to fix those policies? Why is there nothing in the statement to target extra money on pupils through a pupil premium that would target deprivation? Why is there nothing about more freedom for schools to innovate?
	On the children's services agenda, will the Secretary of State tell us whether his desire to tie in children's services more closely with schools is going to mean a relocation of responsibility for those services—from primary care trusts and social services, which are not usually very good at interacting with schools, to the schools themselves?
	This was supposed to be one of the centrepieces of the Government and their aspirations, yet it has given us an indication of why they are so far adrift, because we have had a 10-year plan for the future of children that is entirely top down, entirely unconvincing and that will not deliver the aspirations that the Government have themselves set.

Jeremy Wright: I welcome the Secretary of State's recognition that the CAMHS service has a capacity problem. Following the comments of the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), may I ask the Secretary of State to recognise that there is a substantial segment of services that CAMHS cannot offer children and young people with mental health problems? I am thinking particularly of those who have experienced traumatic situations, for example. Will he ensure that the review will give adequate consideration to the funding that voluntary sector organisations need to provide the services that CAMHS will be unable to provide, even post-review?

David Miliband: My hon. Friend knows that if EPAs are not signed by 1 January 2007, the current regime lapses and the benefits that countries such as Namibia and South Africa receive are lost. That is why we are pushing hard for EPAs to be signed on a fair basis, and why the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) was with me at the European Council yesterday, discussing how to make progress with the Trade Commissioner. I shall be happy to get an update on any further developments for my hon. Friend during the debate.

William Hague: I know that Labour Members are showing ever-increasing interest in what happens under a Conservative Government. After the past couple of months, that is not surprising. It has become a far great likelihood. The background to our approach is what I set out last month, and I will not go further than that today. The hon. Gentleman is asking me to anticipate the Conservative manifesto at the next election. He will find out about that in due course.
	Not just Britain's but the whole European Union's economic competitiveness will suffer as a result of the incompetent handling of the negotiations about competition policy.

Michael Connarty: I cannot think of a stronger advocate for more powers for the Committee. At the moment, the Government and their Ministers just see us as a bit of an annoyance. We have been crawling all over them and doing our job properly and that can sometimes be tedious. Someone said to me recently, "I'm fed up with writing you letters." I should say that it was said jovially, but underneath it there was a bit of truth. We do not apologise for that or anything that enhances scrutiny. I shall come later to questions of to deal with the opting-in process; that must be discussed on the Floor of the House if the process is to have any credibility.
	Let us look at the Lisbon treaty from the perspective of the European Parliament's Constitutional Affairs Committee's report on it. First, there was the statement made at the conference on the future of Europe that I attended last week: let us accept the fact that 95 per cent. of European laws and decisions will be made under the European co-decision making process. That will give the European Parliament a say and the power to amend in 95 per cent. of cases. That is a fundamental, massive change, and I might argue positively for it. The one thing that used to worry me about Europe was that it involved a Commission and a group of bureaucrats and that there was no democratic say. The Parliament had the right to speak but no right to change, amend and have any power. If the conference statement is a good thing, it should be argued for.
	The European Parliament report says that the Treaty of Lisbon is a
	"substantial improvement on the existing treaties"
	and that it will provide
	"a stable and lasting framework"
	for the work of the EU. The report endorses the treaty and expresses the hope that all member states will ratify it. It states that the treaty will provide more democratic accountability, including greater scrutiny powers for the European Parliament, and that Council meetings will be in public, the new budgetary process will require Council and European Parliament approval, and that future revision of the treaties will be carried out by a convention. That means, of course, that the passerelle clause will be used in a number of cases. All Governments would have to agree unanimously to pass over to qualified majority voting areas of policy that do not use it at the moment.
	The report also mentions more rights and clarity for citizens—for example, through the European institutions being bound by the charter of fundamental rights and the European Union acceding to the European convention on human rights. The latter point is important; the EU would suddenly become controlled by the convention. The EU itself has not been, although Governments have. The report also introduces the idea of a European citizens initiative; I heard that debated at length last Monday and Tuesday but still do not know what it means. How would citizens get together so pressurise that great bureaucracy? Last week, I also heard statements again and again—including from the rapporteur Richard Corbett, of the Party of European Socialists, and a member of the Labour party. He did not think that the yellow and orange cards would be workable; he said that they would never be used, and many echoed that in last week's debate. So according to European parliamentarians, those supposedly great powers given to the national Parliaments would never be triggered. That worries me greatly.

Michael Connarty: That is a factual statement. The previous Minister for Europe, who is now our Chief Whip, has said that that is how deals are done. I do not know whether other Members who were in previous negotiations accepted that that was how Europe works—that sometimes people give in to something that they are not quite happy with on the basis that they are storing up good will for something coming down the line. That is on the record in one of our evidence sessions, and it was a revelation to me.
	The Committee cannot understand why, when the text finally came out following the process of negotiations, it contained the word "shall". It said that under article 8, Parliament "shall" participate in institutions of the European Union. We objected to that and asked why the Government did not negotiate to put in the word "may". They said that the French word, "contribuant", means that the action is ongoing, but we talked to French Members, who said, "No, that means, 'You will contribute'". We understand that France took a strong position on this. They did not want to take out the word "shall" and put in the word "may". The wording now is that Parliaments shall "contribute to" or "participate in". The legal judgment of our officials is that that will be used by the ECJ to say that the Commission, if it wishes to in future, can take infraction against any Parliament that refuses to participate in any part of the EU's institutions. That is a very negative aspect. We expressed that view to the Government and suggested that they seek that amendment, but they did not secure it. On Monday, I asked President Barroso why we should not insert the word "may", and he gave the same interpretation as the Portuguese Foreign Minister—that the article imposes no obligation on national Parliaments and is purely declaratory in nature. If that is the case, why not put in "may"?
	I apologise for going on for so long, but I want to turn to one final matter before I conclude. When we did not get the agency workers directive, the TUC said that it was a bad day for workers throughout Europe. It was also a bad day when the TUC concluded that the charter of fundamental rights would not be applicable because of the Government's assertion that it was tied up in the agreements, opt-outs and red lines, so working people would not be able to gain in their terms and conditions of employment or in any other matters related to the charter.
	I think that the TUC did everyone a great disservice there. I have to ask people in the great unions, such as Tony Woodley of the Transport and General Workers Union or Derek Simpson of Amicus—both sections of Unite, the union of which I am a member—or Mr. Kenny of the GMB, why they did not realise that if they campaigned against the treaty and called for a referendum that led to its defeat, it would be denied to 26 other countries, whose working people and civil society wanted the charter of fundamental rights. I cannot understand a movement of working class solidarity that uses such a technique, and says, "If I can't have it, I'm taking their ball and going off the park, and you can't play."

Stewart Jackson: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what has changed between the general election, when it was pertinent to have a referendum on this "technical issue", and now, when it is not?

Richard Shepherd: As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) observed, there is a sameness about these debates. We go over common ground—but it is the very ground on which this Parliament is built, and the very ground on which we live. It is about ourselves again, this debate: that is all that it has ever been about.
	Germany must do what Germany must do, as France must do what France must do. But in this debate, in these proposals, now over 34 years old, in the strong drift towards the creation—or attempted creation—of a federal state, the same question nags away. Who governs? To whom is this Parliament accountable? It is not accountable, surely, to a Commission in Brussels. It is not accountable to institutions formed by others. It is accountable to the people who sent us here.
	There was a joy, in that at the last election all three parties promised that the people should be invited—no, not invited, but should be given the right, which we would express by law—to take part in a referendum on this treaty. I do not think that we need deal with the Liberal Democrats' position, which remains as curious as ever, and my own party's position will come under more intense scrutiny as the weeks go by, but Labour's 2005 election manifesto promised this:
	"We will put it"—
	the European Union constitution—
	"to the British people in a referendum and campaign whole-heartedly for a 'Yes' vote".
	That was the undertaking given by the Labour party—the Labour Government, in fact—and the then Prime Minister made clear not only that the British people would have their say on the EU constitution, but that if the constitution were rejected he would not sign up to what was simply an amended version. At the time he said:
	"We don't know what is going to happen in France, but we will have a referendum on the constitution in any event—and that is a government promise".
	He went on to say:
	"what you can't do is have a situation where you get a rejection of the treaty and then you just bring it back with a few amendments and say we will have another go".
	But is that not exactly what is happening now? That is the deceit.
	I have no intention of going into why paragraphs and so on are replications of the other constitution. What I want to talk about is the central trust. This House is at the lowest ebb of my lifetime. People's contempt for our institutions and our Parliament is at a level that I have never perceived before. Why? Because we are not trustworthy. That is the truth. People do not believe what we say. How could one believe the Foreign Secretary after his embarrassing performance today?
	Fortunately, the Foreign Secretary has a more mobile, expressionful face, and more mobile, expressionful actions and gestures than any Minister I have ever seen. He is like the itchy schoolboy—the clever itchy schoolboy. I toyed in my mind with whether this was a new Bevin. Was this Ernie? No, this was no Ernie; this was his master's voice, although I was not sure whether I was hearing the gramophone or the dog that used to sit by the gramophone.
	The truth is that this was a poor, poor performance. Every time the Foreign Secretary heard an argument that contradicted the line that was to be taken, his face played out the drama. But an interesting theme developed. Slowly there came that Ceausescu moment when he realised that not everyone bought the line that he was sending out. This is not a convenient House when your own colleagues start pulling apart some of the detail.
	And that wretched European Scrutiny Committee! Whose job was that? Do you know, they actually had the impertinence to suggest that there should be a block on the necessity for a debate? Why, no; we were going to talk about much important things—much more important things—things that we cannot do anything about. That is the essence of the Foreign Office now: "We're going to deal with Darfur with a European initiative. We're going to deal with Zimbabwe with a European initiative." No one believes a word of it. It is posture. That is what we saw today on two legs: outrageous posture.

Chris Bryant: In actual fact, the warden was always trying to make sure that Captain Mainwaring did not get his way. Perhaps I am the verger, rather than the warden—but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
	Having started well in this debate, I move on to the elections in the Russian Federation. They show some very disturbing trends in Russian politics. As all the observers who have commented closely on Russia in recent years have pointed out, although the elections might have reflected the views of the Russian people, they were in no sense fair and free. Throughout the election period, 80 per cent. of the airtime on television and radio was devoted to the Government line. Every single independent television and radio station has been closed down by the Government, always for spurious reasons.
	Journalists, particularly those critical of the regime, have been murdered in large numbers. One can imagine the row that there would be if a single journalist critical of the Government in this country had been murdered. The fact that there have been many such murders in Russia, without a single person having been brought to justice, is a sign of the repression of the media there. There is not only direct but indirect repression—there is an air of bullying around the Russian media. Free elections cannot take place without free media; they cannot be held without a pluralist media environment, and that does not exist in Russia at the moment.
	Political parties in Russia have also been repressed. One of the requirements that Putin introduced was that a new party had to have 50,000 members before it could be started. The Liberal Democrats may not get 50,000 people voting in their elections this week, so they should look at what is happening in Russia and be fearful.
	On top of that, the Government introduced a new law that increased the threshold that parties had to cross in order to gain seats in the lower house of the Duma from 5 to 7 per cent., thereby again limiting the power of smaller parties to be represented there. Non-governmental organisations have been repressed, including independent organisations such as Amnesty International, the British Council and others that were not founded originally in Russia by Russians, as well as Russian organisations themselves. That is very dangerous for civil society in Russia.
	One interesting aspect that has not been much commented on is the fact that if a party secures a certain percentage of the vote in the election, it is forced afterwards to pay for the airtime that it had during the pre-election period. For instance, the Democratic Party of Russia secured only 0.13 per cent. of the vote in the elections and yet will now have to pay $6.1 million. As it is a very small party, that will almost certainly make it go bust in the next few weeks. Likewise, the Russian Social Justice party got 0.22 per cent. of the vote and will now have to pay $8.2 million.
	For British interests, perhaps one of the most worrying factors of the elections was that Andrei Lugovoi was elected on the Liberal Democratic party list—not this country's Liberal Democrat party but the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia. That gives him yet further immunity from prosecution, which makes it even more difficult for the British Government to secure justice for the family of Alexander Litvinenko. It seems entirely possible that he will now be made Deputy Speaker in the Russian Duma. That would be a gross insult not only to that family living in this country but to justice in this country.
	The results showed that the United Russia party—Mr. Putin's party—secured 64.3 per cent. of the vote. On top of that, the Liberal Democratic party, which is allied to the Kremlin, got 8.14 per cent. of the vote and A Just Russia, another Kremlin-aligned party, secured 7.74 per cent. of the vote. How do we know that those parties are aligned with the Kremlin? WE know because they have already declared that they will support whoever Mr. Putin supports to be president in next year's presidential elections. In other words, more than 80 per cent. of the vote and more than 80 per cent. of the seats for the 450-seat Duma have basically gone to one conglomerated party—the presidential party. That is worrying.
	On a subsidiary point, if the Russian Federation can get away with having only 450 Members of Parliament, perhaps we, as a much smaller country, should begin to consider whether 650 Members of Parliament is too many and we should reduce our numbers—certainly the number of Members in the second Chamber.  [ Interruption. ] I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South-West would like that to be abolished.
	In the past couple of days, we have heard yet more worrying news. Having said last year that he would not anoint anybody as his successor but would leave it to the people of Russia and his party to decide who the candidate should be, Mr. Putin has decided that Dmitry Medvedev should be the candidate, thereby almost certainly securing the election for him. On top of that, we heard today that Mr. Medvedev has anointed Mr. Putin as the new Prime Minister. That example of Kremlin musical chairs is nothing other than despotic, and we should be worried about it. It might be that all this does not matter, but I believe that it does.

Douglas Carswell: So it goes on—once again, this House is debating the European question: which powers should be exercised at EU level and which should rest with member states? Once again, the political class argues about the handover of democratic decision making to remote functionaries.
	The UK Government promised that the further transfer of powers to EU institutions would require a referendum, and so did half a dozen other EU Governments. Where people were asked—in France and Holland—they overwhelmingly voted against that. Despite the best efforts of the entire political establishment, the French and the Dutch overwhelmingly rejected the view of their masters. I venture that, had the people of Britain been asked, they too would have shouted an unmistakeable "No!"
	Yet the political class gathering in Lisbon has simply overruled the people. Across Europe, democracy's veto has been counter-vetoed by the technocratic elite. Now we in the UK, like others in Europe, can only watch as those in the political class go ahead. We are powerless as they make the same net transfer of power under the reform treaty that they wanted to make under the original constitution.
	When Hugo Chavez lost his recent referendum in Venezuela, at least he had the good grace to accept the outcome. In Europe, when the political bosses lose referendums they simply carry on. The Government talk about providing leadership in Europe, and I wish they would. Half a dozen EU Governments have reneged on promises to give their people referendums. If this Government wanted to give leadership, they would lead the way in offering people a referendum. In doing so, they would force other member states to allow their people a say. In allowing people a direct say, the Government would demonstrate that policy in Europe is not the preserve of the professional diplomatic elite, but the property of all the peoples of Europe.
	In a few days time, the European diplomatic corps will meet to sign the constitutional treaty. Their gathering, remote and exclusive, is a perfect symbol of what is wrong with the EU. Unaccountable and detached officials meet to make the decisions, but the people are kept safely away behind the barriers.
	Our Prime Minister will stay away from the photo summit, and that too is a telling illustration of our relationship with Europe. We sulk, we are petulant, but ultimately, we are submissive. Nothing better illustrates what is wrong with our relationship with Europe: for all the petulance and grandstanding, in the end we go along with what has been decided.
	Those of us who have campaigned long and hard for a referendum may well find that our wish, and the wishes of the British people, are simply ignored. The failure of the political establishment to allow a referendum will ultimately mean that the European project remains the project of the elite. It will be the preserve of the technocrat, the diplomat and the official, not of the people. Without a referendum, the EU project will lack democratic legitimacy, and without that legitimacy, it will not thrive. The question is, will it survive?
	In conclusion, the failure to give us a referendum on this treaty denies it legitimacy. Political power held by institutions without democratic legitimacy do not stand for long. They lack stability, and are vulnerable. As communist Yugoslavia, apartheid South Africa and Soviet Russia all discovered, political institutions that lack democratic legitimacy ultimately fall apart.
	One day, the people of Europe will challenge the EU's institutions directly. The days of deference to the diplomat and the technocrat, and to Foreign Office and the EU officials, will come to an end. On that day, EU institutions will find themselves without legitimacy—but less legitimacy for the EU is not necessarily bad. Indeed, the worse things get, the better they may one day be.

Jim Murphy: All I say to my hon. Friend is that over the next few weeks and months one will not be allowed to travel anywhere.
	I think that both sides of the House would accept that the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) was the most humorous, and possibly one of the most thoughtful, particularly on the issue of Russia. A number of interventions were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South-West (Mr. Davidson)—my very good friend—despite his current physical condition. On behalf of everyone in the Government, may I say that I hope that it is nothing trivial? He informs me that he fell, but an investigation is taking place into whether he was pushed.

Owen Paterson: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. Happily, the Secretary of State has just turned up, so perhaps the Minister can confer and give us a clear reply.
	Successive Ministers have promised to defend rural schools. At the time of the countryside march in February 1998, when he was the Minister responsible for school standards, the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown) said:
	"When a school closes a village loses a vital focus...setting a spiral of decline. This is what we want to stop."
	In May 2000, the current Home Secretary, who was then the Minister responsible for schools, said:
	"Rural schools are often the lifeblood of local communities. I know there are difficult decisions that local authorities have to take but in the case of village schools, we were right to put the village before the planner."
	The chairman of governors of Adderley Church of England primary school, alarmed at the proposed reorganisation of Shropshire primary schools, has also told me that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw), said on "The Westminster Hour" on 4 November that the Government have a policy to keep rural schools open.
	I have also had approaches from Maesbury primary school and Selattyn Church of England primary school, which are indicative of the huge confusion and disruption that will be caused to Shropshire's primary schools if a reorganisation leads to the closure of a number of schools. The proposals will be deeply unpopular with parents and grandparents, as well as being most upsetting for staff and, above all, the children involved. Councillor Keith Barrow has put down a motion to Oswestry borough council, while Councillor Gerald Dakin has laid a similar motion before North Shropshire district council. This is all so unnecessary. We would not even be discussing the issue tonight if Shropshire received a fraction more of the central funds from the taxpayer that are awarded to other authorities.
	Given the unreliability of current population data, particularly on immigration, now is no time to close schools that take decades to establish and build a reputation. They may even have to be reopened or, worse, new schools may have to be built, at great public expense, to cope with an influx of new pupils.
	I repeat that I am not asking for a single penny more to be levied from the British taxpayer. I am simply asking for a proportion of taxpayers' funds to be returned to the county of Shropshire in order to make a bitter and costly closure programme unnecessary. The Government have established the primary capital programme for improving existing schools. Could this be brought forward? Finally, would the Minister agree to meet me, with other Shropshire colleagues and representatives from the council, to find a solution to our modest requests? Unless a solution is found, irrevocable damage could be done to Shropshire's exceptional system of primary education, with an inevitable further impact on the county's isolated rural communities.